What are thoughts of Universal Basic Income

Jul 2018
3,206
1,036
Earth
wouldnt that cause radioctive fallout?
Russia isn't concerned with radioactive fallout if they use their national killer nuke that can destroy France or Texas with one bomb. Radioactive fallout from typical nuclear bombs is overblown. Nuclear powerplants are more dangerous. Remember, the Japanese rebuilt Nagasaki and Hiroshima within a year or two with no ill effects. One guy got nuked in both cities and he lived to a ripe old age.
 
Sep 2015
14,304
5,088
Brown Township, Ohio
this isnt australia and that wasnt what happened one university there TRIED to ban sarcasm, nothing came of it, see you need to work on paying attention to details, you look smarter that way
What college was your alma mater? Give me enough time and you will tell me when using the Chinese Water Torture.
 
Sep 2015
14,304
5,088
Brown Township, Ohio
Russia isn't concerned with radioactive fallout if they use their national killer nuke that can destroy France or Texas with one bomb. Radioactive fallout from typical nuclear bombs is overblown. Nuclear powerplants are more dangerous. Remember, the Japanese rebuilt Nagasaki and Hiroshima within a year or two with no ill effects. One guy got nuked in both cities and he lived to a ripe old age.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had fission bombs dropped on them. Modern day nuclear bombs are fusion which are terrible. Both the USSR and USA dropped fusion weapons at remote location. The first fusion bomb was dropped by the Americans had an expected yield of 5 megatons but delivered 15 megatons. How did that happen? The Americans built the bomb case of U-238 which is non-fissile, oops.


Andre Sakharov developed the first Russian thermonuke but was a pancake design which could not be scaled up and thus not a true thermonuke. Russia learned from past mistakes and now has The Tsar Bomb with a yield of at least 100 megatons, equivalent TNT.
 
Last edited:
May 2018
5,309
4,590
USA
It is very easy to kill off 80% of the world's population. The problem would be what to do with over 6 Billion corpses. The stench would be unbearable.
Don't think of it as 6 billion corpses. Think of it as 6 billion units of recoverable materials. We could dry the corpses like mummies and burn them for fuel in the nuclear winter.
 
Dec 2018
6,603
1,896
New England
I'm asking this as a concept, not necessarily could/should it work in the US?

On the "Pro" side, this would eliminate the need for many of the government assistance programs and essentially lump them all into one universal system. Poverty would be reduced and hunger would be seemingly non-existent. As well, it could be argued that it would allow for individuals to pursue their passions, rather than just a means to make money. For example let's say I make $50K working a boring desk job. If I'm instead getting $30K from a universal basic income, I'm probably going to pursue a career in the culinary world where my passion is, even though the average salary is much much less than my desk job. One could argue that humans ability to fully express their creativity could lead to more progress than the current system.

On the "Nay: side, there's the obvious objection of cost. Cost cost cost. Even eliminating all entitlement programs likely would not pay for a UBI that would provided substantial benefit. As well, free paychecks could cause rampant laziness for those who just want enough to get by. In fact it's likely progress will slow because people's income is not dependent on getting better at their job. For example, if I do pursue my career in the culinary arts and it's ALOT more work than I thought I'd be, I'm more likely to quit because my income is not dependent on it.

What are everyone's thoughts on this as a concept?
If we eliminated other forms of welfare subsidies I'd be all for it as it would be a far more efficient program to run.

That said, it would not, however, eliminate poverty nor the myriad of problems that come with it. There's often more to being poor than simply a lack of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sabcat
Dec 2013
33,811
19,372
Beware of watermelons
If we eliminated other forms of welfare subsidies I'd be all for it as it would be a far more efficient program to run.

That said, it would not, however, eliminate poverty nor the myriad of problems that come with it. There's often more to being poor than simply a lack of money.

Poor people are generally poor because they are bad w/ money.
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,372
Beware of watermelons
The question is whether that lack of money is a cause or an effect. There's a fair body of evidence to suggest that in many cases it's the latter.
It's more of a cultural thing, as in the welfare cultural. You have generational check gatherers. Mom saw grandma just get a check, daughter saw mom so on abd so forth. The fathers leave. The kicker is that hustlers are very industrious but what they are doing is illegal so when the are successful the state just comes along and confiscates their wealth. This is by design IMO. Still there is no budgeting, investment or true wealth gathering and they are handcuffed by the welfare system. Entering the workforce is basically discouraged. The system Murray proposes is the opposite plus it encourages things like community and does not financially reward multiple children. One adult. One check. Period.
 
Dec 2018
6,603
1,896
New England
It's more of a cultural thing, as in the welfare cultural. You have generational check gatherers. Mom saw grandma just get a check, daughter saw mom so on abd so forth. The fathers leave. The kicker is that hustlers are very industrious but what they are doing is illegal so when the are successful the state just comes along and confiscates their wealth. This is by design IMO. Still there is no budgeting, investment or true wealth gathering and they are handcuffed by the welfare system. Entering the workforce is basically discouraged. The system Murray proposes is the opposite plus it encourages things like community and does not financially reward multiple children. One adult. One check. Period.
I think we've all seen examples of the kind of influences you describe, but the studies I've seen focus on decisions and their consequences. You're getting into why those decisions are made, and while useful I'm not sure we have the same level of certainty about the whys.